Rulings

Our rulings are published every Wednesday and set out on the public record how, following investigation, the advertising rules apply and where we draw the line in judging whether an ad has broken the rules. We also publish a list of companies and organisations which, following receipt of a complaint, agreed to amend or withdraw their ad without the need for a formal investigation.

Rulings (5)

Easylife Group Ltd
- Upheld
- Newspaper
- 12 August 2020
A newspaper ad for a face mask was banned for implying it could protect wearers from COVID-19 without holding sufficient evidence to prove it met PPE standards.
HiSmile Pty Ltd
- Upheld
- Social media (paid ad)
- 22 July 2020
A Snapchat story ad for a teeth whitening product made misleading claims about its effectiveness.
Easy Shopping 4 Home Ltd
- Upheld
- Internet (OM 3rd party)
- 04 March 2020
A product listing on Amazon for face masks claiming to protect consumers from coronavirus was misleading and irresponsible and likely to cause fear without justifiable reason.
Novads OU
- Upheld
- Internet (on own site), Internet (display)
- 04 March 2020
Paid-for display ads and website claims for face masks claiming to protect consumers from coronavirus were misleading and irresponsible and likely to cause fear without justifiable reason.
Atlantic Therapeutics Group Ltd t/a innovo
- Upheld
- Television
- 26 February 2020
Two TV ads claiming shorts could strengthen women’s pelvic floor and treat incontinence were misleading.

Informally resolved (0)

Mail order cases (0)

Database cases (0)